>So the nub of the issue seems to be what we take capital (and therefore
>capitalism) to be. For me, the whole problem of surplus value, hence of
capital,
>lies precisely in explaining it on the basis of free exchange. Unpaid
labour, in
>*this* context (the sale of labour-power), is the solution.
1. Exchange is a value conserving process, (in the terms of
my online seminar it is a unitary rotation operator on amplitude
space).
2. The payment of a debt is a unitary rotation operator.
I.e., it is free and fair exchange.
3. Production takes place outside of the realm of exchange and
leads to the formation of new material goods. Any viable
capitalist economy will have a production process that
yields a material surplus.
Production is thus not a conservative process and
can not be represented by a unitary operator.
4. Production uses labour and thus gives rise to wage debts.
The cancellation of these debts is value conserving
and thus free and fair exchange.
5. Survival of capitalist firms presuppose that the wage debts
they incur will be less than the net commodity surplus produced
in the production process.
Where is there a problem?
-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L on behalf of Rakesh Bhandari
Sent: Thu 21/04/2005 18:06
To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Cc:
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?
At 2:49 PM +0100 4/20/05, Andrew Brown wrote:
>Hi Rakesh,
>
>Maybe we have in mind rather different things. I have in mind
developed
>capitalism -- where there is, for example, real subsumption of
the
>labour process -- rather than the processes involved in capital
coming
>to dominate production, i.e. coming to be developed (processes
that of
>course continue to this day, as capital continues to expand and
develop
>across the globe). These processes of development may be those
foremost
>in your mind? These processes of development are very revealing
about
>developed capitalism, e.g. the history of the enclosures is one
of
>direct coercion and ongoing resistance.
>
>I would argue that (developed) capitalism is to be initially
>characterised by the prevalence and dominance of capital,
M-C-M' with
>M'>M. The increment M'-M = dM here occurs through, inter alia,
free
>exchange.
is it free? is it even an exchange? I think not.
>Buying a slave is not a free exchange so cannot explain dM.
The inference here does not seem valid.
>If
>slavery were predominant then it would be slave owners, not
capital,
>that would drive production.
slave owners can be capitalists, producing commodities from the
start. Marx certainly did not deny this
> Buying labour power explains dM.
surplus value is the appropriation of unpaid labor time. It
appears
in capitalist slavery that labor power is not at all paid for
for
while in formally free wage labor it appears that labor is fully
paid
for.
rb
> With this
>comes the whole ideology of freedom for all, characteristic of
>capitalism, based on the double freedom of labour.
>
>Re. 'sharp distinction': this concerns the status of the
labourer and of
>labour in slavery and capitalism - the different forms taken by
>exploitation in different modes of production. It does not
concern the
>comparison of slave labour and free labour within one single
mode of
>production (e.g. capitalist). In both modes, of course, both
slave and
>free labourer generally get a hiding at the point of
production.
>
>Re. 'fluidity and creativity of labour': within slave-based
society
>there are a fixed range of tasks to be done by 'talking
animals' and
>animals, with land, tools etc. To the extent that slave owners
get their
>way, fluidity or creativity of labour does not extend beyond
these
>tasks.
>
>I continue to be embarrassed about my lack of historical
knowledge on
>this stuff...
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Andy